Dear Big Nana,

I'm sorry I haven't had the time to give your post more fulsome attention though I do feel some of the citations in my answers to Loudmouth might address some of what you have contended.

I will ask one thing though;

You wrote;

“On a final note, the argument that those removed children should have been left to live with their culture is a fallacy, because most were more white than black, so their dominant culture was European, and as such, they had every right to be raised in that culture.”

Please think about that for a moment. In the previous sentence you were keen to paint these as fatherless kids being raised by their Aboriginal mothers and yet you claim their dominate culture was European. So if an aboriginal woman gives birth to a half-caste child is her culture suddenly dissipated?

Hi Steele,

The Moseley Royal Commission, yes, I transcribed it all word for word, indexed it, and put it on my web-site: www.firstsources.info on the WA Page. Nice to read it again. Why do you assume that nobody has read what you have just discovered ? A little learning ......

So what is your point ? That somebody had a certain point of view about casual liaisons ? Was it translated into legislation ? No ? Then, what ? How is this relevant to the RPF myth ? Check out that Royal Commission transcript again, Steele: is here a word about the RPF story ? No ? Nothing from a single witness. [You may find it easier to use the Index to it on my web-site].Why's that ?

Do Neville of 'Doctor Bryan' use the term 'criminal liaison' ? No ? What were they worried about then ? Clearly, they were concerned to minimise the number of young children without any family support - don't forget that back in those days, (and until about 1971), there were no financial supports for single mothers and even for deserted wives - those children would have to be supported by the State, as one of its fiduciary duties. Me and my brother and sister were some of those kids; I don't know how on earth our mum supported us for a couple of years. I remember staying in a playground next to the tinware factory where she worked; she would come out every break to check on us. Somehow we weren't spotted by the policed. I think that lasted only a couple of days.

No, different girls, 16- and 17-year-olds, heading off to Fremantle and the good life, not 9-year-olds and 12-year-olds. As for Neville's concern about those girls' behaviour, see the last paragraph.

No, none of your 'sources' are conclusive. Not even Windschuttle, in his comments on the methodology used by Pilkington. Read them again more carefully.

No, you haven't given me the case of any 'stolen child' as far as I remember. Foxy tried, but not you. Any suggestions ?

Joe

Dear Steele,

Perhaps you could suggest to Joe to try the following:

(I don't have the will or the patience).

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/a-guide-to-australias-stolen-generations#toc0

http://www.creativestories.info/aboriginalculture/politics/stolen-generations-stories

http://stolenchildrensstories.blogspot.com.au

cont'd ...

My apologies, let me try again:

http://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/politics/stolen-generations-stories

http://www.australianhumanitarianreview.org/archive/Issue-February-1998/bird.html

cont'd ...

Dear Steele,

Google the names of Belinda Dann, Joyce Injie, Maree Lawrence,
Bill Simon just for a start. On the law of averages are they all
lying?

Dear Foxy,

Thank you. If Loudmouth can't accept the obvious, that Molly and her cousins were stolen, then there is little to be gained by placing anyone else in front of him. Don't worry though, things are bubbling along nicely.

Dear Loudmouth,

You are now embarrassing yourself. You are now asking why the PRF story was not in the Commissioner's documents. This is just another version of something you have asked twice before and given a perfectly logical answer. Why are you still persisting? Are you inebriated?

You wrote;

“Why do you assume that nobody has read what you have just discovered ?”

Where on earth have I given that impression? Please don't make things up. I had actually expected you to recognise some earlier quotes which is why I didn't attribute them. Would you like to guess where they are from?

Now most of us have a tale to tell from our past. My mother was widowed and also told that she was possibly going to lose us five children to social services before she managed to secure two days work in a local nursing home. Tough times indeed.

However there was a single man with the power of guardianship of every aboriginal and half-caste child to the exclusion of the rights of the mother of an illegitimate half-cast child. This power was extended after the Royal Commission to include all aboriginal children until the age of 21 'notwithstanding that the child has a parent'.

You wrote;

“So what is your point ? That somebody had a certain point of view about casual liaisons ? Was it translated into legislation ? No ?”

It seems transcription has little to do with comprehension. I am going to give you the opportunity to take that back. How about you examine your position tomorrow after the sherry wears off.